<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasised that the forcible dispossession of a person of his private property without following due process of law, is violative of both his human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.</p>.<p>"When it comes to the subject of private property, this court has upheld the high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State," a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha pointed out.</p>.<p>The top court allowed a plea by Sukh Dutt Ratra and others against the Himachal Pradesh government which utilised the subject land and adjoining lands for the construction of the ‘Narag Fagla Road’ in 1972-73, but did not not initiate land acquisition proceedings or give due compensation to the appellants or owners of the adjoining land.</p>.<p>"While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right (after Constitution Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1978), it is pertinent to note that at the time of dispossession of the subject land, this right was still included in Part III of the Constitution. The right against deprivation of property unless in accordance with the procedure established by law continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A," the bench said.</p>.<p>In the instant case, the court noted the State was unable to produce any evidence indicating that the land of the appellants had been taken over or acquired in the manner known to law, or that they had ever paid any compensation.</p>.<p>"The State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all those who are entitled. This arbitrary action is also violative of the appellants’ prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause of action)," the bench said.</p>.<p>Using its extraordinary power under the Constitution, the court directed the State to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants. </p>.<p>"Given the disregard for the appellants’ fundamental rights which has caused them to approach this court and receive remedy decades after the act of dispossession, we also deem it appropriate to direct the State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs 50,000 to them," the bench ordered.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasised that the forcible dispossession of a person of his private property without following due process of law, is violative of both his human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.</p>.<p>"When it comes to the subject of private property, this court has upheld the high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State," a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha pointed out.</p>.<p>The top court allowed a plea by Sukh Dutt Ratra and others against the Himachal Pradesh government which utilised the subject land and adjoining lands for the construction of the ‘Narag Fagla Road’ in 1972-73, but did not not initiate land acquisition proceedings or give due compensation to the appellants or owners of the adjoining land.</p>.<p>"While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right (after Constitution Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1978), it is pertinent to note that at the time of dispossession of the subject land, this right was still included in Part III of the Constitution. The right against deprivation of property unless in accordance with the procedure established by law continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A," the bench said.</p>.<p>In the instant case, the court noted the State was unable to produce any evidence indicating that the land of the appellants had been taken over or acquired in the manner known to law, or that they had ever paid any compensation.</p>.<p>"The State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all those who are entitled. This arbitrary action is also violative of the appellants’ prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause of action)," the bench said.</p>.<p>Using its extraordinary power under the Constitution, the court directed the State to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants. </p>.<p>"Given the disregard for the appellants’ fundamental rights which has caused them to approach this court and receive remedy decades after the act of dispossession, we also deem it appropriate to direct the State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs 50,000 to them," the bench ordered.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>
